Lerner/Lambert v Ellis/O'Leary

[saunders_heroes]

To his credit, he usually sacked a disastrous manager when he saw they were losing control / or out of their depth.

If only he was here now to rid us of the disaster that is Paul Lambert.

[dave.woodhall]

Is it me, or are the same people spitting bile at our current chairman the same people defending Doug?

Has the world gone fucking mad? Try and think of the shit we'd be in if he was still in charge, we hadn't got a pot to piss in by the time he left, and I think I stand on solid ground when I say he was unlikely to inject his own funds to keep us going.

His love for the Villa would fall well behind his love for money or himself.

Dave, do you still have that '101 reasons to hate your chairman' knocking about.

No, the debate is being driven onto the rocks. It should not be an either/or debate. It is being driven there by Randy's supporters. Doug's time has come and gone and had its highs and lows just as Randy's has. It shouldn't even be a 'board out' debate.

It should be assessing the stewardship of the current regime and where it has taken us, and where it is possibly leading us.

The debate isn't being driven anywhere, by anyone. It involves Ellis because the topic is about him. If you want it to be on a different subject, feel free to start one.

[cheltenhamlion]

I am also interested to know what money people think Doug put in out of his own pocket seeing as how lack of investment is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with.

Anyway, the despicable performance he put up around the Tony Barton testimonial will always mark him out as a scrote in my house.

[Ads]

 I cannot believe that people are seriously talking about Ellis and his love for the club and comparing him to Lerner.

The man was on the board at the Sty and the Custard Bowl.

Ellis never put a penny of his own money into the club, took out a wage, profited heavily from our flotation and even more so when he sold to Lerner.

He is the man that failed to see what the Premier League was when the likes of Martin Edwards and Ken Bates, other olds beasts of the 70's and 80's too, got with it and we missed our chance forever. Dismantling the European Cup winning side and seeing us relegated another dubious accolade of his.

Doug wasn't the anti-Christ, but this ridiculous veneer that people are glossing him with as some sort of loveable old uncle is nonsense and revisionism. Lerner at worst is a naïve fool who has splurged £200 million plus on this club to achieve something and thus far failed, in part through his own naivety with O'Neill and the subsequent failure of well-paid decision makers, evidently not qualified at the time to do so, in more recent times.

The argument is so thin as to boil down to "well at least Doug attended!"; and so he bloody well should, he was being paid £230,000 a year and was an employ of the club.

[saunders_heroes]

I am also interested to know what money people think Doug put in out of his own pocket seeing as how lack of investment is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with.

Anyway, the despicable performance he put up around the Tony Barton testimonial will always mark him out as a scrote in my house.

It's not Doug's fault that Lerner inherited a billion quid to play around with.

[LeeB]

To his credit, he usually sacked a disastrous manager when he saw they were losing control / or out of their depth.

Or if they were successful when he wasn't there.

[itbrvilla]

I am also interested to know what money people think Doug put in out of his own pocket seeing as how lack of investment is being used as a stick to beat Lerner with.

Anyway, the despicable performance he put up around the Tony Barton testimonial will always mark him out as a scrote in my house.

Its not the lack of investment is it though? Its the poor investment that has seen a few hundred million pound spent since the take over, yet our team is arguably worse tahn Dolly's, and the reputation and standing of the club appears to also be on the decline (obviously not helped by the emergence of the super clubs).

[saunders_heroes]

I cannot believe that people are seriously talking about Ellis and his love for the club and comparing him to Lerner.

The man was on the board at the Sty and the Custard Bowl.

Ellis never put a penny of his own money into the club, took out a wage, profited heavily from our flotation and even more so when he sold to Lerner.

He is the man that failed to see what the Premier League was when the likes of Martin Edwards and Ken Bates, other olds beasts of the 70's and 80's too, got with it and we missed our chance forever. Dismantling the European Cup winning side and seeing us relegated another dubious accolade.

Doug wasn't the anti-Christ, but this ridiculous veneer that people are glossing him with as some sort of loveable old uncle is nonsense and revisionism. Lerner at worst is a naïve fool who has splurged £200 million plus on this club to achieve something and thus far failed, in part through his own naivety with O'Neill and the failure of well-paid decision makers evidently not qualified at the time to do so.

The argument is so thin as to boil down to "well at least Doug attended!"; and so he bloody well should, he was being paid £230,000 a year and was an employ of the club.

I couldn't care less that Ellis was on the board of both Small Heath and Wolves, and why should it? Dennis Mortimer played for Blues as did Peter Withe and many others as well. Does that leave a stain on their memory at Villa? Not at all.

As for Lerner - if we were top 6 and playing terrific football we wouldn't give a damn that he didn't attend games, but sadly we aren't and we don't. So the fact that he hasn't seen a Villa game in person for 16 months makes it look like he doesn't give a damn especially with the club stumbling from one disaster to another.
I'm surprised there's so many fans that stick up for him.

[Dave Clark Five]

Is it me, or are the same people spitting bile at our current chairman the same people defending Doug?

Has the world gone fucking mad? Try and think of the shit we'd be in if he was still in charge, we hadn't got a pot to piss in by the time he left, and I think I stand on solid ground when I say he was unlikely to inject his own funds to keep us going.

His love for the Villa would fall well behind his love for money or himself.

Dave, do you still have that '101 reasons to hate your chairman' knocking about.

No, the debate is being driven onto the rocks. It should not be an either/or debate. It is being driven there by Randy's supporters. Doug's time has come and gone and had its highs and lows just as Randy's has. It shouldn't even be a 'board out' debate.

It should be assessing the stewardship of the current regime and where it has taken us, and where it is possibly leading us.

But it is easy to criticise Ellis to take the limelight away from Lerner.

[sirlordbaltimore]

To his credit, he usually sacked a disastrous manager when he saw they were losing control / or out of their depth.

If only he was here now to rid us of the disaster that is Paul Lambert.

Agreed.

[LeeB]

Is it me, or are the same people spitting bile at our current chairman the same people defending Doug?

Has the world gone fucking mad? Try and think of the shit we'd be in if he was still in charge, we hadn't got a pot to piss in by the time he left, and I think I stand on solid ground when I say he was unlikely to inject his own funds to keep us going.

His love for the Villa would fall well behind his love for money or himself.

Dave, do you still have that '101 reasons to hate your chairman' knocking about.

No, the debate is being driven onto the rocks. It should not be an either/or debate. It is being driven there by Randy's supporters. Doug's time has come and gone and had its highs and lows just as Randy's has. It shouldn't even be a 'board out' debate.

It should be assessing the stewardship of the current regime and where it has taken us, and where it is possibly leading us.

The debate isn't being driven anywhere, by anyone. It involves Ellis because the topic is about him. If you want it to be on a different subject, feel free to start one.

Thanks Dave, I was going to refer the gentleman to the thread title.

[LeeB]

Is it me, or are the same people spitting bile at our current chairman the same people defending Doug?

Has the world gone fucking mad? Try and think of the shit we'd be in if he was still in charge, we hadn't got a pot to piss in by the time he left, and I think I stand on solid ground when I say he was unlikely to inject his own funds to keep us going.

His love for the Villa would fall well behind his love for money or himself.

Dave, do you still have that '101 reasons to hate your chairman' knocking about.

No, the debate is being driven onto the rocks. It should not be an either/or debate. It is being driven there by Randy's supporters. Doug's time has come and gone and had its highs and lows just as Randy's has. It shouldn't even be a 'board out' debate.

It should be assessing the stewardship of the current regime and where it has taken us, and where it is possibly leading us.

But it is easy to criticise Ellis to take the limelight away from Lerner.

You're right, it is easy to criticise Doug.

[Dave Clark Five]

Is it me, or are the same people spitting bile at our current chairman the same people defending Doug?

Has the world gone fucking mad? Try and think of the shit we'd be in if he was still in charge, we hadn't got a pot to piss in by the time he left, and I think I stand on solid ground when I say he was unlikely to inject his own funds to keep us going.

His love for the Villa would fall well behind his love for money or himself.

Dave, do you still have that '101 reasons to hate your chairman' knocking about.

No, the debate is being driven onto the rocks. It should not be an either/or debate. It is being driven there by Randy's supporters. Doug's time has come and gone and had its highs and lows just as Randy's has. It shouldn't even be a 'board out' debate.

It should be assessing the stewardship of the current regime and where it has taken us, and where it is possibly leading us.

But it is easy to criticise Ellis to take the limelight away from Lerner.

You're right, it is easy to criticise Doug.

I knew that was coming. However, two wrongs, if that's what they are, do not make a right. It was made clear to Ellis that most wanted rid of him. He left when he thought the time was right, but still maintains a keen and active interest in the club. Now we are left with a manager and first team coach who seem to be able to get away with everything, almost as if the club is just Lerner's toy. If Lerner had anything about him, he would have sacked those clowns a long time ago. I hope, in this long period of apparent disinterest, he has been actively seeking replacements.

[Toronto Villa]

I really do not understand this obsession that some people have with Lerner attending games. Why does it matter? It isn't 1970 where you have to physically be somewhere to see something. He can watch all of the games and stay in touch with people at the club using his thumbs. The truth is if we were playing well those people criticising the chairman wouldn't give a shit if he attended. In fact they'd tell him to stay away. Unless you physically want to go up to his face to tell him how you felt, what else would him being there really accomplish? Do you think if heard boos from the crowd it would change anything substantially or provide him information that can probably already figure out for himself? Losing creates discontent and he doesn't need to be at the ground to work that out.

[Dave Clark Five]

It's like a boss never being in his office. It creates anarchy. This can extend to senior employees such as football managers.